It's a simple recipe: have an opinion and then mine the past for confirmation of this opinion. If the amount of CGI in a film is inversely proportional to how much audiences like it, then Avatar should have been a failure and Waterworld should have swept the Oscars. You can make the exact opposite argument just as well by simply picking different films.
If the author wants to test this theory he needs to find a way to predict the success of the film based on his hypothesis before the fact, not after.
TFA: "The Scottish Government will shortly submit a request that Scotland is excluded from any European consents for the cultivation of GM crops, including the variety of genetically modified maize already approved and six other GM crops that are awaiting authorisation."
The rest of the world calls that corn. We've been genetically modifying it for all of recorded history.
It's sad really. The promise of the web was that would be a tool for democratization, it would empower the individual, level the playing field. It was finally a chance for the individual to stake out a piece of ground and speak dirrectly to his or her audience. It turns out, however, that we all just handed the power over to different middlemen who now use more sophisticated tools to squeeze the artist back to a position of bare survival. So far this has been true in photography, music, and books. Probably more.
You sound like a lawyer, so I want to give the benefit of the doubt here, but I don't understand where you get the idea that fair use is just immunity.
Copyright infringement is unlawful. Fair use is not an infringement of copyright. So if it's not infringement, how is it unlawful?
The article makes is sound like this is a totally senseless, random act with no explanation, but that's a little misleading. While it's easy to argue that 50 years is already too long, Canada's 50 year term is also an outlier on the low end in the international community. Most other countries have a 70 year copyright term for recorded music, including the UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc. The US allows for 95 years. Having copyright terms that uniform across international boarders is useful.
This looks like a trojan horse to allow Getty to gain a wide foothold around the web in a way they can control. There is nothing to stop them — in fact it's in their TOS — from adding ads to the iframe at some point. They will then be in a position of monetizing their images in a different way than licensing them, which mean they probably will not need to share revenue with the photographers.
Getty is currently owned by the Carlyle Group, which makes me wonder if this is part of a grand strategy to break the company up into sellable pieces. Having a segment with a internet-friendly, sharing, youtube-esque, business model and no existing liability to contributors is probably pretty attractive to them.
But my guess—nobody wants their nasty embedded frame on their site and this will be a dud.
In the entire history of the universe we have seen one example of life forming. It boggles the mind that from this one sample scientists think they know when, how, and where life can and can't form in the universe.
Kathy, I am a photographer and I am very familiar with copyright. I have also done a lot of work under federal contracts so I'm familiar with copyright in that context as well.
Claiming that works like the ones on Flickr cannot be used for commercial purposes is not claiming a right, but rather stating a fact. The statement is unnecessary, but it seems the White House decided it would be a good idea to remind people of the facts in light of recent events.
The only part that is a little baffling is the statement that the images may not be modified. It's also strange that this is not on the http://www.flickr.com/people/whitehouse page but only under individual images. I'm not sure what they are basing this on, but is certainly does not constitute a "Full Copyright Claim." It seems that the headline and article is written, not to illuminate or inform, but rather to garner attention and be provocative regardless of the facts.
If you look at the actual statement on their Flickr page (http://www.flickr.com/people/whitehouse/) you will see that they aren't making a copyright claim. They state why the photos have been uploaded (for news purposes—purposely vague I imagine) and then go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited—basically commercial use. There are more reasons that copyright to prohibit commercial use. Appropriating a person's likeness for advertising, promotion, etc. for example is not a copyright issue, but instead comes from privacy torts. There is no reason to believe that if the White House wanted to go after someone for using an image inappropriately that they would use copyright infringement as the basis for their case. The original article misread the language and assumed the White House was claiming copyright ownership.
Not at all--it is GCI. More importantly, the reason I am still with them is that I, like many, many people, live in a market with no serious competition. That is the real problem.
To be fair, their service, other that this REALLY annoying DNS business has been decent.
My ISP does this. They also have an 'opt-out' option, but you know what that does? It still doesn't send an NXDOMAIN response like it should. Instead it redirects me to a site that is serving the standard windows site-not-found page. A horrifying experience for this mac/linux user.
So I set up my own DNS server, which fixed the problem and sped up my internet connection since the ISP's DNS server was really slow.
I understand slashdot's obsession with the RI...really I do. But, don't you think stories like this that aren't really even news are getting a little too much attention? There is no decision, no new case, no new theory--not even the filing of an amicus curiae brief, just a petition to file an amicus curiae brief. Next we'll be hearing what the lawyers are eating for lunch.
Please, if you use one of the ISPs in this program, send a very strong message and dump them as soon as the filters go live. Tell them that you are quite capable, thank you very much, of filtering your own content.
I guarantee that if this gains traction it will not stop at porn. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.
I don't really care about their tabs, 'Awesome Address and Search Bars,' privacy or really anything else while they still only score 20 on the Acid3 Web standards test. IE has historically been such a pain in the ass for the entire world because of poor adherence to standards. The article says Microsoft takes standards seriously but the test says otherwise.
I'm just finishing up a project with django. It is a lot of fun, quick, and useful. It is very well designed. One issue, however, is that it is still changing rather quickly. Things in version.95 or.96 can be substantially different than the current development version. This isn't unusual for such a young project, and since the documentation is quite clear and useful it's not a problem, but is something you may want to consider before you plunk down your hard-earned cash on a printed book.
I know exactly what you mean. It was just yesterday I opened a book by Harold Bloom on novels and just a few paragraphs in I find out the Gilberte marries Robert Saint-Loup somwhere in Proust's Remembrance of Things Past I totally didn't see that coming and now it's ruined for me forever. But I shouldn't have been nosing around in the book in the first place if I didn't want a spoiler.
Given that there is so much competition and so much talent in Hollywood and that they are all competing fiercly with one another, why is it so hard to find a good movie to see? Where is the bottleneck that is stripping away the truly creative and feeding pablum to the audience?
It's not just going to piss off people relying on MYSQL, it should REALLY piss off the people who with a sense of open source community built it. Is this the new way for business to embrace OSS--to let all the cute little developers work on a project until it is stable and successful and then when the kids have had enough fun let the adults take over and transistion it away from OSS. This is very discouraging.
Last time I was at an.edu domain all I saw was photos of perfectly diverse students hanging out on perfectly manicured lawns. Not really something that engendered trust.
Why would anyone have any trust in a blog just because the author is associated with a University? All sorts of Universities have faculty and students associated with them who can say anything they like on their "edu" blogs just like the.com blogs. One might think that bloggers associated with universities may be smarter or better writers, but I doubt experience would confirm this.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a simple recipe: have an opinion and then mine the past for confirmation of this opinion. If the amount of CGI in a film is inversely proportional to how much audiences like it, then Avatar should have been a failure and Waterworld should have swept the Oscars. You can make the exact opposite argument just as well by simply picking different films.
If the author wants to test this theory he needs to find a way to predict the success of the film based on his hypothesis before the fact, not after.
TFA:
"The Scottish Government will shortly submit a request that Scotland is excluded from any European consents for the cultivation of GM crops, including the variety of genetically modified maize already approved and six other GM crops that are awaiting authorisation."
The rest of the world calls that corn. We've been genetically modifying it for all of recorded history.
It's sad really. The promise of the web was that would be a tool for democratization, it would empower the individual, level the playing field. It was finally a chance for the individual to stake out a piece of ground and speak dirrectly to his or her audience. It turns out, however, that we all just handed the power over to different middlemen who now use more sophisticated tools to squeeze the artist back to a position of bare survival. So far this has been true in photography, music, and books. Probably more.
You sound like a lawyer, so I want to give the benefit of the doubt here, but I don't understand where you get the idea that fair use is just immunity.
Copyright infringement is unlawful. Fair use is not an infringement of copyright. So if it's not infringement, how is it unlawful?
The article makes is sound like this is a totally senseless, random act with no explanation, but that's a little misleading. While it's easy to argue that 50 years is already too long, Canada's 50 year term is also an outlier on the low end in the international community. Most other countries have a 70 year copyright term for recorded music, including the UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc. The US allows for 95 years. Having copyright terms that uniform across international boarders is useful.
This looks like a trojan horse to allow Getty to gain a wide foothold around the web in a way they can control. There is nothing to stop them — in fact it's in their TOS — from adding ads to the iframe at some point. They will then be in a position of monetizing their images in a different way than licensing them, which mean they probably will not need to share revenue with the photographers.
Getty is currently owned by the Carlyle Group, which makes me wonder if this is part of a grand strategy to break the company up into sellable pieces. Having a segment with a internet-friendly, sharing, youtube-esque, business model and no existing liability to contributors is probably pretty attractive to them.
But my guess—nobody wants their nasty embedded frame on their site and this will be a dud.
In the entire history of the universe we have seen one example of life forming. It boggles the mind that from this one sample scientists think they know when, how, and where life can and can't form in the universe.
Thanks ak_hepcat.
Mrs. Grundy (a.k.a. @markmeyerphoto)
Kathy, I am a photographer and I am very familiar with copyright. I have also done a lot of work under federal contracts so I'm familiar with copyright in that context as well.
Your post has a headline, "White House Makes Full Copyright Claim on Photos." This is very simply untrue. Think of the ways people assert copyright: using the © copyright symbol, registering works with the copyright office, filing an infringement suit, etc.. I don't mean to say you need to do this to have a copyright, but to say that the White House is making a claim to copyright without doing any of the things we normally do to claim copyright things is misleading at best.
Claiming that works like the ones on Flickr cannot be used for commercial purposes is not claiming a right, but rather stating a fact. The statement is unnecessary, but it seems the White House decided it would be a good idea to remind people of the facts in light of recent events.
The only part that is a little baffling is the statement that the images may not be modified. It's also strange that this is not on the http://www.flickr.com/people/whitehouse page but only under individual images. I'm not sure what they are basing this on, but is certainly does not constitute a "Full Copyright Claim." It seems that the headline and article is written, not to illuminate or inform, but rather to garner attention and be provocative regardless of the facts.
If you look at the actual statement on their Flickr page (http://www.flickr.com/people/whitehouse/) you will see that they aren't making a copyright claim. They state why the photos have been uploaded (for news purposes—purposely vague I imagine) and then go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited—basically commercial use. There are more reasons that copyright to prohibit commercial use. Appropriating a person's likeness for advertising, promotion, etc. for example is not a copyright issue, but instead comes from privacy torts. There is no reason to believe that if the White House wanted to go after someone for using an image inappropriately that they would use copyright infringement as the basis for their case. The original article misread the language and assumed the White House was claiming copyright ownership.
It's a real shame that email encryption never really hit the mainstream.
Not at all--it is GCI. More importantly, the reason I am still with them is that I, like many, many people, live in a market with no serious competition. That is the real problem.
To be fair, their service, other that this REALLY annoying DNS business has been decent.
My ISP does this. They also have an 'opt-out' option, but you know what that does? It still doesn't send an NXDOMAIN response like it should. Instead it redirects me to a site that is serving the standard windows site-not-found page. A horrifying experience for this mac/linux user.
So I set up my own DNS server, which fixed the problem and sped up my internet connection since the ISP's DNS server was really slow.
I understand slashdot's obsession with the RI...really I do. But, don't you think stories like this that aren't really even news are getting a little too much attention? There is no decision, no new case, no new theory--not even the filing of an amicus curiae brief, just a petition to file an amicus curiae brief. Next we'll be hearing what the lawyers are eating for lunch.
I'm sure nobody here would argue with me if I suggested that the internet would be a much safer place without routers.
Please, if you use one of the ISPs in this program, send a very strong message and dump them as soon as the filters go live. Tell them that you are quite capable, thank you very much, of filtering your own content.
I guarantee that if this gains traction it will not stop at porn. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.
Seriously.
1. phillips head screwdriver (to open case)
2. wire cutter (to cut leads to switch)
3. wire nut (to short circuit around switch)
4. profit?
The really clever kids will find a way to install a software patch that makes any game say "Show us your tits!" every time the button is pressed.
When I was a kid, my parents had a 'red button' called a leather belt. It was much harder to hack.
I don't really care about their tabs, 'Awesome Address and Search Bars,' privacy or really anything else while they still only score 20 on the Acid3 Web standards test. IE has historically been such a pain in the ass for the entire world because of poor adherence to standards. The article says Microsoft takes standards seriously but the test says otherwise.
I'm just finishing up a project with django. It is a lot of fun, quick, and useful. It is very well designed. One issue, however, is that it is still changing rather quickly. Things in version .95 or .96 can be substantially different than the current development version. This isn't unusual for such a young project, and since the documentation is quite clear and useful it's not a problem, but is something you may want to consider before you plunk down your hard-earned cash on a printed book.
I know exactly what you mean. It was just yesterday I opened a book by Harold Bloom on novels and just a few paragraphs in I find out the Gilberte marries Robert Saint-Loup somwhere in Proust's Remembrance of Things Past I totally didn't see that coming and now it's ruined for me forever. But I shouldn't have been nosing around in the book in the first place if I didn't want a spoiler.
Given that there is so much competition and so much talent in Hollywood and that they are all competing fiercly with one another, why is it so hard to find a good movie to see? Where is the bottleneck that is stripping away the truly creative and feeding pablum to the audience?
It's not just going to piss off people relying on MYSQL, it should REALLY piss off the people who with a sense of open source community built it. Is this the new way for business to embrace OSS--to let all the cute little developers work on a project until it is stable and successful and then when the kids have had enough fun let the adults take over and transistion it away from OSS. This is very discouraging.
Last time I was at an .edu domain all I saw was photos of perfectly diverse students hanging out on perfectly manicured lawns. Not really something that engendered trust.
Why would anyone have any trust in a blog just because the author is associated with a University? All sorts of Universities have faculty and students associated with them who can say anything they like on their "edu" blogs just like the .com blogs. One might think that bloggers associated with universities may be smarter or better writers, but I doubt experience would confirm this.
Works for whom? and in what sense?
From the article:
Is it adding proprietary Microsoft technology on top of embedded Linux?
Could be...
Hard to know what that means--it's deliberately vague.
Now that's some reporting. There is really nothing to see here.